A bill that could bring broad reforms to the Massachusetts cannabis industry has cleared its first hurdle on Beacon Hill, with potential implications for pot companies and customers across the state.

The legislation would reshape the state’s top cannabis regulator, drastically reduce the burdens of opening a medical marijuana company, restrict intoxicating hemp products that behave functionally like cannabis and increase the number of establishments any one cannabis company can own.

It’s a laundry list of changes to the industry that may seem mostly foreign to many cannabis users. But the reforms could affect how pot is regulated in Massachusetts and the businesses that grow and sell it — with downstream reverberations for regular and casual marijuana users alike.

“The industry has changed a lot,” from when Massachusetts first allowed marijuana sales, said Ryan Dominguez, executive director of the Massachusetts Cannabis Coalition, an industry trade group.

The bill passed by the state House of Representatives on Wednesday, he said, signals that the chamber has recognized those changes and taken steps to adapt.

Smaller Cannabis Control Commission could be double-edged sword

Among the most significant adjustments in the House bill is a restructuring of the Cannabis Control Commission, the five-member body overseeing the independent agency charged with regulating marijuana in Massachusetts.

Currently, the governor, attorney general and state treasurer share responsibility for appointing commissioners. The bill would downsize the board to three members — one full-time commission chair and two part-time commissioners — all appointed by the governor.

Cannabis businesses and customers have at times accused the commission of being frustratingly slow to respond to developments in the rapidly evolving industry or roll out new regulations.

The agency has also been beset by reported internal strife, staff turnover and the firing of its top official last year. A state watchdog last summer declared the agency “rudderless” and called for a state takeover.

Shrinking the commission and placing it under the governor’s control could quicken the pace at which the agency acts, Dominguez said.

• Read more: A big change is coming to Massachusetts cannabis delivery. Companies can’t wait

But the trimmed-down commission could also be a double-edged sword, he said.

By centralizing power under the governor, the industry will also be more exposed to the influence of an executive who wants to see cannabis access restricted.

“What the CCC does not need is more politics injected into it,” said Blake Mensing, a cannabis attorney who co-owns the Boston pot shop Firebrand.

He also worries that more turnover on the commission could diminish its members’ institutional knowledge and ability to effectively oversee the industry, leading to more regulatory headaches for businesses.

Bill would allow cannabis businesses to expand

Marijuana companies are currently prohibited from owning more than three retail licenses, limiting the ability of larger companies to dominate the market. The bill passed Wednesday would raise that limit to six licenses.

It’s a tensely debated subject in the marijuana industry.

Opponents of lifting the “license cap” say it will allow multistate marijuana corporations to expand their reach in Massachusetts, boxing out or gobbling up struggling smaller businesses or minority owned businesses.

But proponents contend that small operators can benefit as well. When companies are limited to three stores, they can’t acquire fellow pot shops that are otherwise ready to sell.

Lifting the cap provides an easier path for business owners to exit the industry “without losing everything,” Dominguez said.

It may be the difference between a customer’s favorite pot shop closing and the owner finding a buyer who can keep the shop running. The change would also allow successful small businesses to expand beyond three stores.

If the industry consolidates as larger companies buy up smaller ones, customers may find lower and more standardized prices, Dominguez said. Shoppers could also see certain marijuana brands become more prevalent.

But with more than 350 pot shops open across the state, even doubling the number of stores one company can own — from three to six — would not allow any single operator to form a monopoly.

“No one is going to be the Dunkin’ Donuts of cannabis,” Mensing said.

The law would also increase the amount of marijuana that a person can buy daily from one ounce to two. Dominguez said the provision would provide a boon to businesses, allowing them to offload more product and retain high-spending customers at a time when many pot shops are struggling.

Medical marijuana

House lawmakers also voted to end a requirement that medical marijuana companies grow and process the products they sell.

Also known as vertical integration, it’s one of several regulations that significantly increase the cost of owning a medical marijuana company. The companies also must have $500,000 on hand to receive a license and pay $50,000 annually to keep it, five times as much as recreational dispensaries.

Facing staggering operating burdens, some medical marijuana businesses have closed or pivoted to selling only recreational marijuana, limiting access for patients who rely on the drug.

There is no sales tax on medical marijuana purchased at a medical dispensary. Cannabis purchased at a recreational marijuana shop carries a 20% sales tax, even for customers who are eligible to buy medical marijuana.

• Read more: Selling medical marijuana costs a fortune. As fewer shops open, patients feel the squeeze

The end of the vertical integration rule is a welcome sign for medical marijuana advocates like Jeremiah MacKinnon, president of the Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance, who has pushed regulators and lawmakers to drop the requirement for years.

Large multistate companies dominate the medical marijuana market, he said. With fewer financial barriers, more business owners may see the market as viable and pick up licenses to sell to medical marijuana patients.

Patients may find more choices for what they can buy, MacKinnon said. “And more competition usually leads to better pricing and the ability [to find] products they may not have currently.”

“We’re very happy,” he added. “We can grow the medical program instead of it shrinking on us.”

Intoxicating hemp Delta-8 and Delta-9

The 2018 federal legalization of hemp — a plant similar botanically to marijuana but containing far less psychoactive substances — had inadvertent consequences.

It allowed the nationwide proliferation of intoxicating drinks and edibles containing hemp-derived chemicals with similar effects to standard marijuana products but far less strict regulation.

State authorities have struggled in recent years to rein in their spread outside licensed dispensaries, including at gas stations, liquor stores and other outlets not regulated by the Cannabis Control Commission.

• Read more: What to do about ‘gas station weed?’ Crackdown on hemp products is tricky, officials say

The bill passed by the House would crack down on the sale of those products at unlicensed establishments and limit them to locations approved to sell alcohol or CBD. It would require the products to be registered with the commission and meet the regulations for typical marijuana products, along with other restrictions.

Steve Reilly, head of government relations at the cannabis company Insa, said legal dispensaries also need authorities to step up enforcement of hemp products and regular cannabis being openly sold at unlicensed establishments.

“If I opened a moonshine store, they’d probably arrest me before the end of the day,” he said.

Cannabis bill has a ways to go

While the House passed the bill by a vote of 153-0 on Wednesday, the Massachusetts Senate has not shown the same urgency to move forward with it. So any changes to the cannabis industry remain theoretical, for now.

Dominguez said it remains unclear how the Senate will proceed, how swiftly the chamber could move, and even whether Senators will take up the issue at all.

The Senate could also move forward with slimmer cannabis legislation tackling specific issues, such as the vertical integration requirement or hemp product restrictions.

But if the Senate chose to move forward with an all-encompassing cannabis bill, as the House did, Dominguez said it would take time for the two chambers to unify their visions for fixing issues in the industry.

“I will talk to senators and the chair of the Cannabis Committee, and we’ll see,” Senate President Karen Spilka told the State House News Service last week as the House mulled the bill. “We’ll take a look at whatever the House sends over, of course.”